Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Miscellaneous · ·
$4.17
▼ $0.13 (-3.0%)
Market data updated: 09/20 06:52 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/20/2026
News analyzed: 09/20/2026
Market Cap
$1.23B
Day Range
$4.09 - $4.38
52-Week Range
$1.83 - $12.49
Beta
—
Next Earnings
12.11.2026
Support
$3.49
Resistance
$7.18
+124.2% (1Y)
Strengths: 7/32 factors positiveRisk: High
This score and all analysis on this page are for informational and educational purposes only and do not constitute investment advice. Read the full disclaimer
Weighted: Technical 25% · Fundamental 20% · Growth 15% · Valuation 15% · News 10% · Quality 10% · Risk 5%
Overall Score
🔴 Bearish
Technical Trend
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Golden Cross
SMA 50 recently crossed above SMA 200
Technical
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $1.25 vs. price $4.17 (-70.0%)
Fair Value
Signal tension
Growth scores strong (79/100), but fair-value analysis scores this stock as relatively expensive (38/100) — the growth story and the current price aren't fully aligned.
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
NO RELIABLE ECHO FOUND
Only 2 historical analog(s) found after removing overlapping dates — too few for a statistically meaningful comparison.
Historical matches considered: 2
TIME ECHO identifies historical situations that resemble the current market state. Historical outcomes are not guarantees of future performance. Similarity does not imply causation, and results may change as new data becomes available.
🗓️ What Changed This Week
🌱 Building History
We don't have a real data point from a week ago for this stock yet. The weekly comparison will appear once enough history has accumulated.
📊 Score History
42
Today
—
30D
—
90D
—
1Y
🕰️ Signal Timeline
What StockIQ actually saw for this stock, and what happened after each signal — real data, not a forecast.
10d ago · $4.91
Evidence: FOMO score jumped from 5 to 41 day-over-day
What happened after
🐂🐻 Investment Thesis
🐂 Bull Case
🐻 Bear Case
🔍 What Could Prove This Wrong
This isn't a price-direction forecast — just a synthesis of real, already-computed data, and future conditions that could change the picture.
🧬 STOCK DNA
This stock's profile across 8 real dimensions — a research tool, not a recommendation
Growth
79
Quality
58
Value
38
Momentum
31
Risk
28
Sentiment
56
Fundamental
19
Institutional
No data available
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
Not enough comparably-scored stocks yet to show similar matches.
This stock hasn't been analyzed by StockIQAI's movement engine yet — coverage is still expanding. Check back soon.
Morgan Neutral rating with a $5 price target. Additionally, local approval to rezone its idle Giga Arctic facility in Norway for data center development recently boosted
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about T1 Energy Inc.. News trend score: 56. Reason: 6 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 5 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🏛️ Investor DNA — Historical Investors
A Historical Strategy Simulation: assuming each investor follows their documented principles, how would they rate this stock today? This is not a prediction of what they would actually do.
🟢 Best match
Howard Marks (Market Cycle) — 95/100
🔴 Weakest match
Benjamin Graham — 7/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
Based on Howard Marks's documented cycle principles, the model estimates the stock sits in an early‑to‑mid market cycle, which aligns with the high scores from Marks (cycle) and Nelson and contributes to the upbeat views of Lynch, Mackay and Fisher who see growth potential and strong quality. However, Schwager and Smith’s moderate scores reflect a more neutral stance, and Marks’s separate valuation‑risk rubric flags caution, pulling the average down. The lower scores from the efficient‑market view, Housel, Veblen, Graham (enterprising and defensive), Livermore, Bagehot and Loeb stem from concerns about volatility, growth pursued for its own sake, insufficient margin of safety, liquidity risk and an adverse trend. Consequently, the debate arises because cycle‑ and quality‑focused methodologies reward the stock while valuation‑ and risk‑oriented frameworks penalize it.
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 95
Looks early-to-mid cycle, not overextended
Key question
Where are we in the cycle right now — near a hot extreme, or a cold one?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 91
Cycle position looks favorable — closer to oversold than overbought
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 84
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟢 79
Growth candidate — the price hasn't caught up to the growth
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟢 75
Exceptional company quality by Fisher's standards
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 49
No clear edge either way
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 48
Reasonable but not a clear long-term holding
Key question
Is this a stock I'd be happy to hold and forget about for a decade?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 41
Mixed — a good business, but expectations may already be high
Key question
What is the market probably misunderstanding about the risk here?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🔴 34
Weak case — Malkiel/Bogle would say a low-cost index is the simpler bet
Key question
Do I actually have an edge here, or do I just think I do?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🔴 31
The kind of volatility that tends to shake patient holders out
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🔴 30
Pattern Veblen would flag as growth pursued for its own sake
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🔴 28
Not statistically cheap enough for the Enterprising Investor's looser safety bar
Key question
Is the stock statistically cheap enough to justify the extra risk?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 45%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 25
Negative trend — against Livermore's core rule of trading with the trend
Key question
What is the price telling me right now?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🔴 22
Liquidity position Bagehot would flag as a real risk
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🔴 17
Risk profile Loeb would flag as a real threat to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 7
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Based on the last 280 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (2 bullish · 9 bearish · 1 neutral)
A market-structure read based purely on real price and volume data — not full classic Wyckoff schematic identification (Phase A-E), but a quantitative analysis of what can reliably be computed: trading ranges, "effort vs. result", volume within the range, and Spring/Upthrust detection.
The stock is in a clear downtrend with no defined trading range in the period examined.
High confidence
The Wyckoff Method, developed by Richard Wyckoff in the early 20th century, reads the balance of supply and demand through price and volume, based on the premise that large investors ("smart money") quietly accumulate shares before rallies and quietly distribute them before declines. The read here is based solely on real price and volume data — full, precise identification of classic Wyckoff patterns (such as Phases A-E) requires human chart-reading experience and judgment, so this is an approximate algorithmic read, not a substitute for professional analysis. This should not be considered investment advice.
Gross Margin
7.4%
Operating Margin
-31.1%
Net Margin
-48.7%
EBITDA Margin
-18.7%
ROE
-146.9%
ROA
-26.8%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$2.19
Cash
$182.45M
Total Debt
$390.16M
Current Ratio
1.43
Debt/Equity
1.56
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$4.17
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$1.25
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-70.0%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
25.0%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 25.0% | $20.83M | $19.11M |
| 2 | 19.4% | $24.87M | $20.93M |
| 3 | 13.8% | $28.28M | $21.84M |
| 4 | 8.1% | $30.58M | $21.67M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $31.35M | $20.37M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$16.66M
Terminal Value
$494.33M
Present Value of Terminal Value
$321.28M
Enterprise Value
$425.20M
Net Debt
$207.71M
Equity Value
$217.49M
*The DCF model is an estimate based on assumptions — not a guaranteed forecast. You can change the assumptions to examine different scenarios.
Book Value per Share
$1.44
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$0.07
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 6 positive, 9 neutral, 5 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 14.9.2026
Benzinga · 14.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 9.9.2026
Benzinga · 8.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 1.9.2026
MT Newswires · 27.8.2026
Yahoo · 27.8.2026
Stocktwits · 27.8.2026
MT Newswires · 27.8.2026
Yahoo · 27.8.2026
GlobeNewswire · 27.8.2026
Benzinga · 27.8.2026
Benzinga · 27.8.2026
Benzinga · 26.8.2026
Yahoo · 26.8.2026
Zacks · 20.8.2026
Motley Fool · 19.8.2026
Zacks · 19.8.2026
T1 Energy Inc. (TE) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 42/100, rated "Weak". The score is a weighted average across up to 7 categories (technical, fundamental, growth, fair value, news, quality, risk), based on real data only.
TE currently scores 42/100 (Weak) across the categories we measure. StockIQ doesn't give buy/sell recommendations — use this as one data point in your own research, not as investment advice.
Per StockIQ's DCF model, TE's estimated fair value is $1.25, which is 70.0% below the current price of $4.17. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
TE's technical score is 31/100, which currently reads as bearish — based on real price/volume signals (moving averages, RSI, MACD, and more), not a prediction of what happens next.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: SMA 50 recently crossed above SMA 200; Revenue growth (last year): 25572.8%; Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 31.6%.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: $1.25 vs. price $4.17 (-70.0%); Operating margin: -31.1% (negative); Net margin: -48.7% (negative).
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for TE.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 0 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Munro Andrew | Tax Withholding in Shares | 29.7.2026 | 38,989 | -38,989 | $3.72 |
| Munro Andrew | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 29.7.2026 | 100,000 | -100,000 | — |
| Munro Andrew | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 29.7.2026 | 100,000 | +100,000 | $3.72 |
| Gualy Jaime Eduardo | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 29.7.2026 | 91,666 | +91,666 | $3.72 |
| Gualy Jaime Eduardo | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 29.7.2026 | 91,600 | -91,600 | — |
| Gualy Jaime Eduardo | Tax Withholding in Shares | 29.7.2026 | 29,383 | -29,383 | $3.72 |
| Munro Andrew | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 29.7.2026 | 100,000 | +100,000 | $3.72 |
| Munro Andrew | Tax Withholding in Shares | 29.7.2026 | 61,011 | -38,989 | $3.72 |
| Munro Andrew | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 29.7.2026 | 200,000 | -100,000 | — |
| Gualy Jaime Eduardo | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 29.7.2026 | 91,666 | +91,666 | $3.72 |
| Gualy Jaime Eduardo | Tax Withholding in Shares | 29.7.2026 | 62,283 | -29,383 | $3.72 |
| Gualy Jaime Eduardo | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 29.7.2026 | 183,334 | -91,600 | — |
| Hammond Robert O. | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.7.2026 | 33,375 | +33,375 | — |
| Steingart Daniel | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.7.2026 | 22,695 | +22,695 | — |
| Matrai Balazs Peter | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.7.2026 | 22,695 | +22,695 | — |
| ANDERSON W RICHARD | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.7.2026 | 22,695 | +22,695 | — |
| Manners David J. | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.7.2026 | 22,695 | +22,695 | — |
| Strine Jessica Wirth | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.7.2026 | 22,695 | +22,695 | — |
| ANDERSON W RICHARD | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.7.2026 | 22,695 | +22,695 | — |
| Matrai Balazs Peter | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.7.2026 | 22,695 | +22,695 | — |
| Steingart Daniel | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.7.2026 | 22,695 | +22,695 | — |
| Manners David J. | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.7.2026 | 22,695 | +22,695 | — |
| Strine Jessica Wirth | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.7.2026 | 22,695 | +22,695 | — |
| Hammond Robert O. | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.7.2026 | 33,375 | +33,375 | — |
| Bentzen Andreas | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 23.6.2026 | 25,000 | +25,000 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
69,577,775 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 60,522,384 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
43.5% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 43.3% the prior week
Based on daily short-sale volume (Reg SHO) — a different metric from the open short interest above: this is daily trading volume, not an open position, so it updates weekly rather than biweekly.
Full breakdown of every data type and its source: Data Sources · Methodology